Why Socialism Will Not Work

Why Socialism Will Not Work

           

            For as long as mankind has existed there have been those who dreamed of a more perfect society.  From Robespierre to Marx to Lenin and Stalin, all had an idea of the perfect society.  The only trouble is; the perfect society can never exist in a society of imperfect beings.  Socialism cannot succeed simply because it is anathema to human nature.

            We all know and understand that man and woman are never perfect.  There is at least one fatal flaw in all of us, in some of us there are dozens.  Ambition is a character trait that is rampant in the human race and it has always been so.  As a matter of fact the unambitious individual is a rarity.  Very seldom do you find someone of low status that is happy to remain in that position.  The vast majority of people keep their eyes focused upward always wanting just a little more than what they have.   Ambition is the fly in Socialism’s ointment.

            The premise behind Socialism is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  This would mean that everyone has just what he or she needs to survive and not one thing more.  There is no competition, everyone has exactly the same.  Everyone’s house is the same; the only difference is the number of bedrooms.  The furnishings are all the same. The cancer doctor lives in the same apartment building as general laborer, the movie star lives next door to a convenience store clerk.  An education gains you no privilege that the uneducated does not enjoy. 

            Really?

            What is the purpose of studying four, six, eight or more years to be something special if there is no reward for that sacrifice?  Why put pride into your work and do your best to turn out a quality product when you will reap no greater reward than someone who slacks off and does the bare minimum?  Sure, it sounds wonderful, let’s have a society where everyone does his best and shares equally with everyone else.  That may work in a fairy tale, but in real life it won’t work.

            Given a chance to make a socialist society work, I think that the majority of people would start out trying very hard to make it work.  However, as the population of the society grows, disillusion will set in and many workers will find that they don’t have to perform well to be rewarded and eventually it will fall apart.  Severe punishment will have to be implemented to insure that each worker gives at least a modicum of effort.  Eventually this will lead to an elite class whose job is to enforce standards of production on everyone.  This will result in a certain group of people acquiring power over the rest which will inevitably result in that group granting themselves extra privileges. To make sure that they keep these special privileges, they will have to institute ways to insure that they stay in power which leads to Communist dictatorship.  This is not any new idea, it has happened many times over the history of civilization.  If you want a great example of how it works, I recommend that you read George Orwell’s Animal Farm.  Really, everyone should read that book, it isn’t a long treatise or difficult to read, try it, you may learn something.

In this country, middle class and upper middle class citizens look at the very rich and curse the fact that they don’t have as big a house, or as fancy a car and it is very easy to convince them that the rich got their money by cheating people like them.  When I hear most people complain about how unfair life is to them, I always want to ask, “What about those who have less than you?”  And folks, no matter who you are, if you live in this country the vast majority of people in this world have less, much less than you.  Here in America we enjoy the highest standard of living of any country in the world, by far.  But class warfare goes on and a mysterious, vague group of people called “The rich” are targeted.  People don’t seem to have any concept of whom they are speaking when they say, “The rich should pay more taxes.”  It’s just someone that has more than they do. 

And “someone who has more than you” is the very basis of the great push today toward Socialism.  Facts don’t seem to be a big deal to the people who lead this attack on success.  It’s all emotional and anyone who disagrees is labeled an idiot, a liar or worse.  And many of us, myself included, who try to state some facts and inject some small bit of common sense into the argument are threatened and marginalized because there is no real argument against that which we say.  So we continue to plunge this, the greatest country in the world, headlong into a system that has never and will never work, just because someone has something that someone else doesn’t.

John A. Wilson

President

Conservative Action Project of Union County

El Dorado, Arkansas

The Three Fifths Compromise

The Three Fifths Compromise

Article I Section 2 Paragraph 3 of The Constitution of the United States, when written, included the formula for determining, for representation purposes, the population of a state.  It stated, “…their respective Number, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxes, three fifths of all other persons.”

Fredrick Douglas was an escaped slave who became a scholar and a leader of the abolitionist movement in the late 1850’s just before the Civil War.  When Mr. Douglas first heard about the clause in the U.S. Constitution he was appalled and asked the famous question, “Am I but 3/5 a man?”  After Douglas researched the reason behind the Three Fifths Compromise he later conceded that the compromise was, in fact, anti-slavery.

When our constitution was being drafted that part of Article I was dubbed “The Three Fifths Compromise.”  It was not, as some still today claim, a slight against persons held in bondage, but was necessary to insure passage of the Constitution as a whole.  The fact of the matter is, the southern states, which were already dependent upon slavery for their very existence even before the Revolutionary War, wanted to count all slaves in their census to determine the number of representatives their respective states would have in Congress.  The industrial northern states opposed the slave states counting slaves at all. The reasons for the dispute require a bit of a lesson in Civics.

This country was blessed to have some serious geniuses that happened along exactly when our country needed them.  One of the most ingenious accomplishments of the founding fathers was the legislature consisting of two separate houses.  The bicameral legislature was not a completely original idea; the British Parliament is also a bicameral legislature.  It was the way that legislators were selected to each house that was novel and such a stroke of genius.

The original thirteen colonies were of various sizes, from tiny Rhode Island to the Carolinas, Virginia and Georgia.  At the time of the drafting of The Constitution these southern states were much larger than we know them today.  In the case of Virginia and Georgia, the state lines were surveyed all the way to the Mississippi River.   So this is where the genius comes in; the drafters of the Constitution gave each state, regardless of size or population, two senators so that each state had equal representation.  In the House of Representatives the number of Congressmen was based on the population so that each person in the republic had equal representation.  But at this point the states in which slavery was legal, mainly the southern states, cried, “Foul.”

The southerners knew that the northern states were becoming more and more industrialized and that the abolitionist movement was starting to gain some popularity in those states.  They knew that to maintain the practice of slavery a constant battle would have to be fought.  Remember, there were thirteen original colonies.  Seven colonies did not allow slavery.  There were only six that did.  So in the Senate, the slave states were already at a disadvantage since there were 14 senators from Free states and only 12 from slave states.  The southern states hoped to gain the advantage in the House by insisting that the slaves be counted in the census to establish the number of Congressmen from each state.  The northern states had some serious objections.  The northern states reminded the southern states that the slaves were considered “property” instead of people in every other way except determining the number of representatives.  The representatives from the northern states pointed out that the slaves did not have the right to vote, so how could they be represented?  They argued that if the southern farmers could count their slaves as population, then northern farmers should be allowed to count their cows for the same reason. 

This sounds quite silly and it was, but these were the arguments that the northern states used in the hope of maintaining an advantage of numbers in Congress.  They knew that they would have to have numbers over the southern states if they were to be able to enact laws that would eventually abolish slavery.  The southern states were well aware that this was the northern state’s real intention so they insisted on counting their slaves so that they could have enough representatives to keep the anti-slavery laws from being passed.

The result was a total deadlock.  The southern states would never ratify a Constitution that didn’t allow them to count their slaves in the census and the northern states would never ratify one that did.  Thank God for Henry Clay.  He was known as “The Great Compromiser” and found a happy medium to which both sides would agree.  The Three Fifths Compromise allowed the southern states to count 3/5 of the slaves in the census to determine representation in Congress.  This number gave just about an equal number of representatives from the slave states and the Free states. 

With equal numbers in the House, the abolitionists could begin to enact laws with the goal of eventually ending slavery in this country.  It was a long uphill climb and would have taken several decades to bring about the end of slavery, but would have eventually accomplished that end had it not been for the fact that the southern states saw the writing on the wall and decided that to continue with their lifestyles they would have to secede from the Union.  I think we all know what the end result of that was.

When Frederick Douglas learned the real reason behind the 3/5 Compromise he readily admitted that it was an anti-slavery act and supported it 100%.  The Three Fifths Compromise did not, by itself, end slavery, but it put into motion the acts that would eventually bring about the end of this terrible practice.  The portion of our Constitution that mentions this compromise was nullified by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Yes, counting slaves as 3/5 of a man was wrong, but The Constitution of The United States of America included a section about how the document could be changed.  After the 3/5 Compromise accomplished what it was set out to do, it was changed, and the Constitution guided this fledgling republic to be the greatest country that the world has ever known.

John A. Wilson

President

Conservative Action Project of Union County

El Dorado, Arkansas

Bin Laden is Dead

Bin Laden is Dead

There is great celebration and dancing in the streets, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Many looked on gleefully. Others were horrified that this kind of celebration is taking place over the death of a human being. These differences in perception raise a very legitimate question. Is this loud, in-your-face celebrating appropriate for the greatest, most civilized country in the world?

To many Americans and people across the globe, the celebrations that took place on Monday reminded them of the celebrations across the muslim world after 9/11, or any of the many atrocities that have been committed in the name of “Allah”.  To others it was a day to celebrate the death of a man that has killed thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of his own people.  Personally, I see it in a slightly different light.

On Monday I wanted to celebrate because justice has been served.  I’m not proud that Seal Team Six killed a man, but I am very proud that the mastermind behind so many innocent deaths has been brought to justice.  I know many will dispute my claim that this is justice since Bin Laden didn’t receive a fair and impartial trial. I can respect that.  There are rumors that Bin Laden was not armed and was therefore summarily executed by the Seals.  That is possible. Many don’t see the reasoning behind the quick, dead of night burial at sea.  They may have a point. But I ask you to think about this for a minute.

Over the years since 9/11, I have given a great deal of thought to various scenarios in which Bin Laden may be brought to justice.  Suppose he was captured and brought to American soil to be tried (and by American soil I mean any U.S. Military installation including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba).  All over the world muslins would take to the streets screaming for his release.  Any government in the Arab world would be forced to put pressure on the U.S. or face a violent overthrow.  Defense attorneys wishing to make a name for themselves would come out of the woodwork wanting to take the case and you can believe that no underhanded trick would be overlooked to get him off.  And when you think about it, just where would he go for a fair trial?  The military tribunal would be put off again and again in search of an impartial jury.  Meanwhile the worldwide protests would go on and on.  Americans would be taken hostage and murdered in attempts to get Bin Laden released.  Terrorist attacks would be carried out all over the world.  The muslim terrorists are always looking for any excuse to kill Americans and Israelis; this would provide fuel for years of terror.  In the meantime Bin Laden would be sitting comfortably in a cell with all of his needs catered to and still running the world’s biggest mass murder ring.

We all know at least some of what Bin Laden has done.  Did we really need a show trial to determine his guilt?  Did we really need another media circus?  We had overwhelming evidence of whom and what that man was and his execution was the only way that justice could be served and the families of his thousands of victims could have some sort of closure.  There is no doubt in my mind that the orders given to the brave men who invaded Bin Laden’s compound did not include capturing the man and bringing him out alive.  No, they went there to kill him and bring back his body to prove it was done.  Those men followed their orders.  God bless them.  Remember, the thousands that died on 9/11 and other attacks against innocent Americans did not get a fair trial.  They had no chance to plead their case even against a prejudicial jury.  Again, I don’t celebrate because a human being was killed, but that justice was served.

As for dumping his body off of the deck of the carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson in the dark of night, no other scenario makes much sense.  If that body were buried anywhere on land or even in sight of land, that place would have become a shrine for every deranged suicide bomber in the world to visit before going off on his evil mission.  No one but a select few on board of the Carl Vinson knew exactly where the ship was when Bin Laden’s body slid off of the deck into the waters below, and I doubt that those who always know the exact position of the ship at all times knew exactly when the body went over the side.  So no one knows exactly where Bin Laden’s body lies in Davy Jones’ Locker.  That makes worshiping a picture of his grave, to say the least, problematic. 

This is not something that you are likely to see often from me, but I commend the Obama Administration for the way they have handled this.  Justice has been served the only way that it could have been done without making things worse for my country.  From the extraction of the information from prisoners at Gitmo, to the prosecution of the intelligence and the carrying out of the mission, all was well done.  Most importantly of all, security was maintained throughout the planning and execution phases.  In today’s world that is quite an accomplishment.  

So, all things considered I have no problem with some high-fives, chest-bumps and cigars.  Let’s have those balloons and confetti, a marching band and cookies, heck, I may even break out in a lusty chorus of “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead” myself.  Just remember, it’s not his death we are celebrating, it is that after so many years, justice has been served.

John A. Wilson

President

Conservative Action Project of Union County